The New Yorker on Gannon: I hope this isn't all they had in mind.

[kohodog]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/index.ssf?050228ta_talk_hertzberg

A commentary that has a few bits of the story that hasn't been in MSM. (Is the New Yorker MSM)? Overall not something to gain anyone's attention who isn't upset already.

Edit: I need to learn how to type!

[Halliburton]

1. Well, it's one of the few media outlets today...

that actually report objectively.

[kohodog]

2. Yes, and this was an opinion piece

I was hoping (and they may be working on it) that they will have a real report on this whole issue. That may take time which is fine. I just was wondering if the stories we've been seeing about investigative journalists in the MSM (including the New Yorker), digging into Guckertgate are still coming or if this was it for the New Yorker.

[klebean]

3. "Nothinggate," the most salient point of this commentary

is found in the following paragraph:

The non-Fox cable news outlets began to pick up on it last week; msnbc even assayed a special logo, “Gannongate.” A better name for it, though, would be “Nothinggate,” because nothing is what is likely to come of it. What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty years—real and fake alike, from Watergate to the Clinton impeachment—have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won’t be because the scandals aren’t there. It’ll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.

[UTUSN]

4. Sounds Like the Story Is Being Kissed Bye-bye

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3152174